Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically

O my, a little voice inside of me is saying "don't get involved, don't
get involved."

Dick, you are aware, I am sure, that adam and/or ha-adam can and does
mean in Genesis 1-4 mankind, man, or the personal name "Adam" right?

Hosea 6:7 is not a good example. Adam there does not refer to a
"covenant with Adam" in no small measure because there was no covenant
with Adam in Genesis. The first covenant was with Noah. To see a
"covenant" with Adam in Hosea 6:7 is influenced by some of the NT
texts you cite in order to find something in the OT that theologically
needs to be there--which leads to a question: On what basis do you
assume that the NT texts are determinative of what Genesis was
communicating in its Israelite context? I agree that the NT treats
adam as a person, but why does that determine what the author of
Genesis meant? Are you concerned to maintain full consistency between
what a text meant in the OT and how it came to be used int eh OT? That
is a hard hill to climb.

Pete Enns

On Oct 6, 2009, at 4:43 PM, Dick Fischer wrote:

> George:
>
> The correct interpretation of Deut. 32:8 can be debated. But please
> give me an interpretation of Hosea 6:7, Luke 3:38, Romans 5:14, 1
> Corinthians 15:22, 1 Timothy 2:14 and Jude 1:14 that agrees with
> your hypthesis that Adam means "mankind" in general and not Adam, a
> flesh and blood human being?
>
> Again, I am not tying a historical Adam living in Mesopotamia with
> any conceivable member of the Homo sapiens species who could
> possibly have been our ultimate ancestor. That's another issue.
>
> Dick Fischer
> www.historicalgenesis.com
>
>
> Oct 6, 2009 04:08:04 PM, GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com wrote:
> 
> Calmly ignoring the fact that I showed that your citation or Dt.32:8
> is misleading & says nothing like what you want it to say.
>
> Sigh - no, I don't mean that Deuteronomy is misleading but that your
> understanding of it is. Simnilarly, the issue is not whether the
> biblical writers were wrong but whether your interpretation of them
> is. I would be more inclined to carry on a conversation with you if
> you could ever admit that you are wrong, as you clearly were in this
> instance.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dick Fischer
> To: asa@lists.calvin.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 3:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically
>
> Hi George:
>
> That's correct. I'm critical of translations that were performed
> without the benefit of extra-biblical evidence. In 1611, that's
> excusable, but later translations merely perpetuate original
> ignorance.
>
> That is what I'm trying to correct.
>
> I am not critical of the writers of the inspired text which is what
> your position demands. Moses has to be wrong. Paul has to be
> wrong. Luke has to be wrong in order for you to be right.
>
> That's the difference between my position and yours.
>
> Dick Fischer
> www.historicalgenesis.com
>
>
> Oct 6, 2009 12:59:32 PM, GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com wrote:
> 
> Dick -
>
> You feel quite free, when it suits your purpose, to criticize
> (usually just by assertion) the KJV translation but then quote it in
> an uncritical way when - again - it suits your purpose. Of course
> bene 'adham in Dt.32:8 is literally "sons of Adam" but it takes only
> a little acquaintance with Hebrew usage to know that the phrase
> "sons of X" often means not "men whose father" is X but "members of
> the class X" - e.g., "sons of the prophets." Thus NRSV translates
> the phrase in question from Dt as "when he divided humankind" and
> NIV has "when he divided all mankind."
>
> Furthermore, while the Masoretic text does have the last part of the
> verse as "according to the number of the sons of Israel (bene
> yisr'ael)", a Qumran mss has "sons of God" and LXX aggelon Theou,
> "angels of God" (which is of course one sense of the Hebrew "sons of
> God" = "godlike beings"). NRSV has "according to the number of the
> god", with "the Israelites" as the marginal reading, while NIV
> reverses this (with "sons of God" in the margin). The latter
> reading makes more sense, the idea being that each of the nations is
> assigned a "guardian angel". (Cf. Daniel 10:13 & 12:1). OTOH it's
> hard to see what it means to say that the nations were divided
> according to the number of the Israelites.
>
> Which of course is not to deny that in some places in the Bible Adam
> is used as a personal name. But your appeal to Dt.32:8 fails
> completely.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dick Fischer
> To: GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com
> Cc: gregoryarago@yahoo.ca ; muzhogg@netspace.net.au ; asa@lists.calvin.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically
>
> Well, to George's point:
>
> "Adam IS mankind."
> George, this is just a dogmatic assertion in the face of contrary
> evidence. There is no leg upon which you can stand.
> Consider Deut 32:8: “When the Most High divided to the nations
> their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam,he set the
> bounds of the people according to the number of the children of
> Israel.”
> Not only is the writer saying that Adam was a father who had sons,
> he is linking the posterity directly to Israel. That’s been my
> point all along.
> I would like to see the pen and ink corrections to Luke 3:38: “ …
> which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth,which was the
> son of Adam, which was the son of God.”
> How does “mankind” fit in that verse? Or fit “mankind” in
> Romans 5:14: “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam toMoses, even
> over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
> transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”
> Was Enoch the seventh from “mankind” in Jude 1:14? I don’t
> think so.
> So if we just assume the Bible writers, and Josephus, and the writer
> of Jubliees, and the unknown chroniclers whose works were destroyed
> over the centuries knew of what they wrote, then Adam was a person
> who lived in southernMesopotamia, land of the Tigris and Euphrates,
> about 7,000 years ago and started the Semitic race. What is so hard
> to understand about that?
> Okay, some theological assumptions may be wrong. Change them!
>
> Dick Fischer
> www.historicalgenesis.com
>
> Oct 5, 2009 07:29:39 PM, GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com wrote:
> 
> No, what I accept is that "Adam" - "the man" - in Gen.2 & 3 is a
> theological representative of the human race. My statement "Adam IS
> mankind" is a bit strong but deliberately so to set it off from
> Dick's claim that Adam was "an emissary to humanity."
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gregory Arago
> To: George Murphy ; Dick Fischer
> Cc: dickfischer@verizon.net ; muzhogg@netspace.net.au ; asa@lists.calvin.edu
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 5:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically
>
> George Murphy wrote: "Adam IS mankind."
>
> If that is the case, George, and if you accept the logic *there must
> have been a first,* then do you accept that the 'first human' was
> ADAM, i.e. the first of 'mankind' or 'humanity'? If not, then why
> not? Are you a *degree, not kind* guy?
>
> From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> To: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
> Cc: dickfischer@verizon.net; muzhogg@netspace.net.au; asa@lists.calvin.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2009 12:47:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically
>
> 
> When humankind (not just a single individual) is said to be created
> in the image & likeness of God in Gen.1:2, it's quite legitimate
> (IMO) to interpret the following words, "and let them [N.B.] have
> dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air,
> and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping
> thin that creeps upon the earth" (NRSV). I.e., humans are to be
> God's representatives in ruling the other creatures of the world.
> The word "emissary" is really too weak for this. But more
> importantly, there is no suggestion that oen human being is
> commissioned to be an emissary to other human beings. So the point
> remains, there is no canonical texts that says - ot implies - "that
> Adam was God’s emissary to mankind." Adam IS mankind.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 6 17:01:50 2009